File talk:Gold Coast (from The Spit).jpg

I shouldn't have thought it was possible to take a beautiful picture of this, posssibly the unloveliest and saddest part of Australia. (I am sure that it was utterly beautiful in, say, 1910, or even 1950.) But you have managed to do wonders with it, Gaz. This is a clear candidate for BP. (Or whatever it's called now.) Tannin 11:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You are most kind! - Gaz 11:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The composition is really really good. A very fine pic, and I have approved it at featured pics candidates. I have one question though: I'd love to see the pic in a little better quality of compression (the resolution is fine). Have you got a better-quality version? Or are you saving those for selling? &mdash; Sverdrup 15:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I am conscious of the size of all images I upload. I usually try and compress them until they go under 100Kb. If you check, you will see that I gave up with Image:Glitz and Palm Trees.jpg as it made the sky look REALLY bad. As you have expressed an interest I will do a new version with less compression and upload it a little later. For the record, the originals of all my (recent) images are 2560x1920 lightly compressed JPEGs. - Gaz 04:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Just a touch more sharpening would be good. Not too much though! Tannin

OK, that is a bit too much, but for the purposes of illustration, try: .

No. That's too much. It's interesting to note how well the clouds resist artifact creation from the sharpening though. Let's trim it back a little. How about:

Better but still not quite right. That's plenty for the foreground, but the city needs a touch more - i.e., time to drag out Photoshop. If you can be bothered. I find it too difficult to learn and use. Not enough practice, I guess.

PS. Please remind me to delete my altered and hacked version of your images in a day or two. No point in cluttering up the database with them. Or, better yet, someone might remember to vote on your admin application and you can do it yourself. Tannin


 * OK, the new version is in place. Something I never mentioned, the only alterations I ever do to my images are cropping, rotation and the (very) occasional cloning out of nasties caught in the image. I never sharpen or blur images. I never lighten or darken images. The buildings in this image REALLY were in a blur. Soon I will upload another image taken on that day that has absolutely no encyclopedic value, it just looks perrrty. I will add it to my image gallery. PS, Tannin, I'm not offended that you modded my images. It's interesting what can be changed. (and thanks for the plug) - Gaz 07:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a matter of personal taste, of course, and it's probably safer to offer advice about a photographer's marriage, religion or choice of underwear than it is to comment on his post-shot reprocessing ... but I feel brave today. ;) If you are presenting a resized image (which is pretty much what you have to do here on the 'pedia - there is not much call for 2560 x 1920 illustrations on your average web-based encyclopedia entry - then you need to sharpen the result a little in order to overcome the inevitable side-effects of the resize operation. The way I see it, sharpening isn't "tinkering" with a formerly honest image, it's simply restoring it (as close as possible) to its original state. (In the case of this image, of course, only you can judge the appropriate amount, as you were the only one who saw the scene in real life.)


 * As a matter of detail, I don't like editing out nasties either, but I will do it if I'm really pushed and have no better alternative image. (Typically, this is because the bird flew off after my first shot and I haven't seen the damn thing since.) The most common of the nasties is the humble blowfly. They love flying right in front of the lens at awkard moments.) But I rotate, crop, sharpen, and adjust gamma anytime it seems like a good idea. For the 'pedia, I sharpen more than I would for myself alone, or for another venue such as the Bird Forum. The way I look at it, 'pedia pictures are something that the reader tends to glance at quickly to gain a first impression of the creature (or whatever other object), and so I aim to make pictures that look their best at first glance. Well, I probably under-do it a bit, but that's the idea. This applies, of course, mainly to thumbnails and taxobox pics, which is mostly all I contribute here. Larger images that load in their own windows, those I assume are more likely to be studied longer and harder, and it's appropriate to ease off on the sharpening a bit. But not too much, as the aim (IMO) is to provide hte same level of clarity that was present in the 2000-and-something pixel original.


 * (Excuse me rabbiting on. I'm supposed to be coding a web page on this Sunday afternoon, I'm a bit stuck on a tricky layout issue, and this is my excuse for not getting back to it.) Tannin 08:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * PS. I can see why you like [[media:Huddled.jpg|huddled]]. Very atmospheric. Tannin

Sorry about that. Hit the wrong link on my navigation popup. Unreverted. Kdau 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)